|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 11 2017 01:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 00:12 biology]major wrote:On February 11 2017 00:09 ticklishmusic wrote:
yeah, "whoopsie, i got pregnant better get an abortion" is pretty rare. it's kind of like the welfare queen who spends her government check on lobster. That's exactly what happens in a lot of the cases I'm not sure which myth you're referring to but the welfare queen myth was invented by Reagan on the campaign trail to create outrage and animosity. The real welfare queen he was basing his stories on was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Taylora white fraudster whose benefits fraud was on a colossally smaller scale than the myth created around her. He took one case of a fraudster who got caught (ie the system working as it should) and used it to portray the population who depend on benefits as a bunch of swindlers. As for abortions. They're expensive. Less expensive than paying for a child, still too expensive to routinely use as birth control.
And unsurprisingly access to good birth control seems to be putting a serious dent in the number of abortions performed.
The sad thing about it all is access to abortions is a partisan issue, but preventing abortions is pretty much bipartisan (pro-lifers don't want abortions done and most pro-choice would probably rather see people avoid abortion situations than have an abortion). But then you have anti-contraceptive+pro-life people that kinda ruin it all.
|
On February 11 2017 00:29 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 22:31 pmh wrote:
The PNAC, project for the new American century seems to have been put on hold for a while,it probably was to much anyway. 1600-1700 was the dutch century, 1700-1900 the English century,1900-2000 the American century, 2000-2100 is going to be the Asian/Chinese century. I'll believe this when the Asian economies aren't held under a Damocles sword of a cheap export economy. Its very clear that in the first 20 or so years of this century that American Influence is unchecked if a bit floundering.
Indeed. China / Asia isn't going to surpass the west untill they develop into a services/consumption led economy.
|
On February 11 2017 01:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 00:12 biology]major wrote:On February 11 2017 00:09 ticklishmusic wrote:
yeah, "whoopsie, i got pregnant better get an abortion" is pretty rare. it's kind of like the welfare queen who spends her government check on lobster. That's exactly what happens in a lot of the cases I'm not sure which myth you're referring to but the welfare queen myth was invented by Reagan on the campaign trail to create outrage and animosity. The real welfare queen he was basing his stories on was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Taylora white fraudster whose benefits fraud was on a colossally smaller scale than the myth created around her. He took one case of a fraudster who got caught (ie the system working as it should) and used it to portray the population who depend on benefits as a bunch of swindlers. As for abortions. They're expensive. Less expensive than paying for a child, still too expensive to routinely use as birth control.
The welfare queen myth is pervasive and durable. People believe it because it lines up with their views that safety nets are widely abused.
|
On February 11 2017 02:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2017 01:14 KwarK wrote:On February 11 2017 00:12 biology]major wrote:On February 11 2017 00:09 ticklishmusic wrote:
yeah, "whoopsie, i got pregnant better get an abortion" is pretty rare. it's kind of like the welfare queen who spends her government check on lobster. That's exactly what happens in a lot of the cases I'm not sure which myth you're referring to but the welfare queen myth was invented by Reagan on the campaign trail to create outrage and animosity. The real welfare queen he was basing his stories on was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Taylora white fraudster whose benefits fraud was on a colossally smaller scale than the myth created around her. He took one case of a fraudster who got caught (ie the system working as it should) and used it to portray the population who depend on benefits as a bunch of swindlers. As for abortions. They're expensive. Less expensive than paying for a child, still too expensive to routinely use as birth control. The welfare queen myth is pervasive and durable. People believe it because it lines up with their views that safety nets are widely abused.
people believe X because it lines up with their views, X
|
The abuse is not rare at all. I would say that most people that work with at the local government level, or has friends with disabilities covered by social security has seen ridiculous examples of waste and exploitation of the system.
It's just the magnitude of this waste, or how much cases like these matter in the large scheme of things that gets poorly estimated.
|
|
|
On February 11 2017 02:22 chocorush wrote:
The abuse is not rare at all. I would say that most people that work with at the local government level, or has friends with disabilities covered by social security has seen ridiculous examples of waste and exploitation of the system.
It's just the magnitude of this waste, or how much cases like these matter in the large scheme of things that gets poorly estimated.
The abuse is not rare at all because [anecdotes]? Do you have any sources for this claim?
|
I've done a lot of work with property managers who deal with section 8 vouchers, state run rental assistance and other state social programs. Abuse of the system is no where near as prevalent or durable is it is made out to be. Most abuse is dealt with. Many of these programs people love to attack mostly serve elderly and disabled.
|
France7890 Posts
On February 11 2017 02:40 Plansix wrote:
I've done a lot of work with property managers who deal with section 8 vouchers, state run rental assistance and other state social programs. Abuse of the system is no where near as prevalent or durable is it is made out to be. Most abuse is dealt with. Many of these programs people love to attack mostly serve elderly and disabled.
If anything the problem with social benefit is that a shitload of people entitled to them don't actually claim them. It's weird but it's actually very well documented.
The whole welfare queen myth has been hugely racialized. The GOP's strategy consists in convincing poor, white people that the welfare state is not for them, but for "those people", who don't want to work and eat lobsters. I think you have to give credit to the republican leaders for convincing all those people to vote against their most basic interests.
|
When people say they see "a lot of abuse" of these welfare systems, they need to clarify what "a lot" is. If they mean a high percentage, provide a source. If they mean like 10 people they know abuse the system, and 10 is a large number of people to know, that isn't relevant in the larger view.
|
On February 11 2017 02:22 chocorush wrote:
The abuse is not rare at all. I would say that most people that work with at the local government level, or has friends with disabilities covered by social security has seen ridiculous examples of waste and exploitation of the system.
It's just the magnitude of this waste, or how much cases like these matter in the large scheme of things that gets poorly estimated.
It works both ways. And egregious examples that slip through for years makes everyone wonder who didn't get caught and how poorly the programs are administrated. Friends want to assume the fraud waste and abuse is small and demand proof otherwise, opponents want to assume its moderate to big and demand proof otherwise.
|
Usually with systems like these, the cost from abuse is a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost that would take to crack down and investigate and police the system on constant basis.
|
On February 11 2017 02:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Usually with systems like these, the cost from abuse is a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost that would take to crack down and investigate and police the system on constant basis.
Anyone who has worked for a big company knows that inefficiencies like this are just as a part of doing business. When there are so many people involved, it is impossible to prevent small abuses and inefficiency.
|
Flynn is such scum. Him having any type of security clearance represents a pathetic failure of how systems ought to work.
|
On February 11 2017 03:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:Flynn is such scum. Him having any type of security clearance represents a pathetic failure of how systems ought to work.
We canned his ass, but he seeped back in with the new administration with a higher security clearance. He is going to get a lot of people killed if he stays there.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there is a lot of abuse of disability but it isnt poor blacks but poor southern whites
|
On February 11 2017 03:20 oneofthem wrote:
there is a lot of abuse of disability but it isnt poor blacks but poor southern whites
Can we make sure we start providing sources with any claims about abuses on either end? I feel like there's been alot of unsubstantiated finger pointing in the last couple of pages.
|
There goes the high ground on the whole Hillary email thing if nothing comes from this.
What are the actual possible reprocussions? I cant see much more than a verbal apology, if even that. I mean Kellyanne got no punishment for a blatant violation of ethics. This is obviously worse tho.
|
so what would the ramifications of this be? I see a lot of news about X doing Y from the trump team with little to no follow-up or impact. Is it a case of 'the wheels take a long time to turn' or is nothing coming of these consistent, egregious ethics/law violations?
|
United States42755 Posts
I'm not even especially worried by the potential for fraud on such an incredibly small scale. If a 3 billion dollar government contract is won by a bribe, or through political donations made on the condition that the contract forms a part of the policy platform, that's an issue to me. If someone gets an extra thousand dollars in food stamps then beyond my basic "how come they get that and I don't, it's not fair!" response, I don't really give a shit. It's not like they're going to fuck up the planet with those food stamps, they're going to spend them in the town they live in on shit that they apparently needed badly enough to commit fraud for.
I view it in pretty much the same way as I view petty shoplifting. Sure, those costs are spread out between the people like myself who don't shoplift and it's antisocial behavior, but if we're ranking antisocial behavior it's really very close to the bottom of the ranking and it'd be more expensive to implement a solution that stopped it happening for which I'd also have to pay.
If we can spend $100 to eliminate $1,000 of benefits fraud, sure, do it. If we're spending $2,000 to eliminate $1,000 of fraud, well, our priorities are a bit fucked up. If we're fucking with the lives of 99% of legitimate claimants to get to the 1%, again, priorities are fucked up.
Also if we're really worried about this kind of fraud the first place to start is funding the IRS. It's literally free to increase their funding, they currently don't have enough money to levy taxes, taxes are going uncollected because they're underfunded. We give them $100 to levy taxes and they go out and get us $1,000 more to spend. It's truly baffling to me that the unpopularity of taxes has led to higher taxes on taxpayers due to an intentional policy of allowing tax fraud to continue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
